The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the establishment to produce witnesses and documentary evidence to prove charges in a departmental enquiry, especially in cases that may lead to the imposition of a major penalty, and the necessity of an impartial arbiter and oral testimony to establish charges.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of termination from service dated 28.06.2023 passed against the petitioner by the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow. The petitioner has prayed that the order be quashed and a mandamus issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service without consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed a Junior Engineer on 14.03.2016 in terms of an appointment letter dated 03.02.2016, issued by the Chief Engineer (Hydro-Electric), U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. The petitioner successfully completed his probation and confirmed in service. While posted as a Junior Engineer at the Sultanpur Electricity Substation, Moradabad, a complaint was laid against him by one Nazim Ali to the effect that the complainant’s application for sanction of a commercial electricity connection was pending with the petitioner. The complainant alleged that on 16.09.2022 when he went to meet the petitioner, he told him that he would take proceedings on his application, if the complainant paid him a bribe of Rs.15,000/-. In fact, the complaint says that the petitioner asked the complainant to come back again on 17.09.2022 to his office with the bribe. The complainant is said to have alleged that he does not want to pay any bribe and wishes that the petitioner be caught red-handed. The complainant demanded action.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the complainant, the scribe of the complaint and his co-workers at the substation. The petitioner’s co-workers, according to him, were not discharging their duties and the petitioner being the Junior Engineer, had complained to higher authorities against the erring employees. His employees were contractual and on the petitioner’s complaint, their contract was terminated. It is on this account that these employees/workmen bore a grudge against the petitioner and sought to wreak vengeance, leading to the ill-found complaint against him. It is averred that the complainant acted in connivance with the errant employees in order to harass, humiliate the petitioner and spite him. The petitioner says of the complainant, Nazim Ali, that he had applied for a commercial connection seeking sanction of a 3 KW load. The application was transferred to the S.D.O., whereas the petitioner was asked to prepare a Technical Feasibility Report. The petitioner drew up the report on 10.09.2022 and sent the same to the S.D.O. for review. It is after a review by the S.D.O. of the Technical Feasibility Report drawn up by the petitioner and an onsite visit undertaken by the S.D.O. that a payment receipt would be issued. Afterwards, the connection would be sanctioned and a meter installed.

4. In the present case, the petitioner, being a Junior Engineer, was supposed to draw up a Technical Feasibility Report, which he did on 10.09.2022 and submit it to the S.D.O. which was done. Thereafter, the petitioner’s obligation came to an end and the other proceedings had to be undertaken by the S.D.O. There was nothing, according to the petitioner, to be done by him, which the complainant could be aggrieved about. Nevertheless, the motivated complaint was made at the instance of Nazim Ali and without hearing the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.09.2022. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet carrying two charges in respect of which disciplinary proceedings were undertaken. The charge-sheet was issued on 19.12.2022. The petitioner sought time on 28.12.2022 and 19.01.2023 to tender his reply, so that he could submit a proper one. The Inquiry Officer neither gave the petitioner documents relative to the charge, nor a copy of the preliminary inquiry report, on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued.

5. There are then averments showing that the petitioner sought time on more than one occasion to submi